Lolitsme wrote: I'm saying it is less likely that they are in error if there is such a unanimity. Are you reading my post with all the qualifiers I put on it? No need to get so worked up....
Now you are qualifying your own original statement? You can't read qualifiers that aren't there. Like I said, make up your mind. And when people start claiming that others are "worked up", it means that they are usually confused and don't know what else to say.
It is obvious that you are not understanding his context. Maybe because you are only quoting pieces of the whole. Here is what Smith said,
This evening, viz the 12th, at 6 o'clock meet [met] with the Council of 12 [Apostles] by their request; 9 of them were present. {page 30} [The] Council opened by singing and prayer. I made some remarks as follows: "I am happy in the enjoyment of this oppertunity of meeting with this Council on this occasion. I am satisfyed that the spirit of the Lord is here. I am satisfied with all the breth[r]en present. I need not say that you have my utmost confidence and that I intend to uphold you to the uttermost.
For I am well aware that you have to sustain my character against the vile calumnies and reproaches of this ungodly generation and that you delight in so doing. Darkness prevails at this time as it was at the time Jesus Christ was about to be crucified. The powers of darkness strove to obscure the glorious sun of righteousness that began to dawn upon the world and was soon to burst in great blessings upon the heads of the faithful.
"Let me tell you brethren that great blessings awate [await] us at this time and will soon be poured out upon us if we are faithful in all things. For we are even entitled to greater blessings than they were because the[y] had the person of Christ with them to instruct them in the great plan of salvation. His personal presence we have not, therefore we need great faith on account of our peculiar circumstances. I am determined to do all that I can to uphold you. Although I may do many things /invertanbly/ [inadvertently] that are not right in the sight of God.
"You want to know many things that are before you that you may know how to prepare your selves for the {page 31} great things that God is about to bring to pass. But there is on[e] great deficiency or obstruction in the way that deprives us of the greater blessings. And in order to make the foundation of this Church complete and permanent, we must remove this obstruction which is to attend to certain duties that we have not as yet attended to.
"I supposed I had established this Church on a permanent foundation when I went to the Missouri. Indeed I did so, for if I had been taken away it would have been enough, but I yet live. Therefore God requires more at my hands.
"The item to which I wish the more particularly to call your attention to night is the ordinance of washing of feet. This we have not done as yet, but it is necessary now as much as it was in the days of the Saviour. We must have a place prepared that we may attend to this ordinance aside from the world. We have [p.57] not desired much from the hand of the Lord with that faith and obediance that we ought. Yet we have enjoyed great blessings and we are not so sensible of this as we should be.
"When or wher[e] has God suffered one of the witnesses or first Elders of this Church to fall? Never nor nowhere amidst all the calamities and judgments that have befallen the inhabitants of the earth. His almighty arm had sustained us. Men and Devils have raged and spent the[ir] malice in vain. {page 32}
"We must have all things prepared and call our Solem[n] Assembly as the Lord has commanded us that we may be able to accomplish his great work. It must be done in God's own way. The House of the Lord must be prepared and the Solem[n] Assembly called and organized in it according to the order of the House of God. In it we must attend to the ordinance of washing of feet. It was never intended for any but official members. It is calculated to unite our hearts that we may be one in feeling and sentiment and that our faith may be strong so that Satan cannot over throw us, nor have any power over us.
"The Endowment you are so anxious about you cannot comprehend now. Nor could Gabriel explain it to the understanding of your dark minds, but strive to be prepared in your hearts. Be faithful in all things that when we meet in the Solem[n] Assembly that is such as God shall name out of all the official members will meet and we must be clean ev[e]ry whit. Let us be faithful and silent brethren /and/ if God gives you a manifestation keep it to yourselves. Be watchful and prayerful and you shall have a prelude of those joys that God will pour out on that day. Do not watch for iniquity in each other. If you do you will not get an endowment, for God will not bestow it on such. But if we are faithful and live by every word that proce[e]des forth from the mouth of God I will venture to prophesy that we shall get a {page 33} blessing that will be worth remembering if we should live as long as John the Revelator. Our blessings will be such as we have not realized before, nor in this generation. (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, p.57)[/quote]
Smith was obviously talking about doing things in relation to his CHARACTER, which he spoke of immediately before you started quoting. It had nothing to do with REVELATION. This was all about getting an ENDOWMENT of POWER, not about Joseph's revelations. You are out of context.
Lolitsme wrote:He's saying we don't have Christ here to guide us. Then afterwards he proceeds to say that they have great need of faith because of that and he might inadvertently do that which is not right in the sight of God. Guide then mistake? The context seems pretty clear to me.
He says no such thing. You are just making up what you want him to be saying. He says, ""When or wher[e] has God suffered one of the witnesses or first Elders of this Church to fall?
Never nor nowhere amidst all the calamities and judgments that have befallen the inhabitants of the earth. His almighty arm had sustained us. Men and Devils have raged and spent the[ir] malice in vain." This shows that you are out of context. It is not about doctrinal matters, but matters of personal sin or shortcomings. It is easy to take things out of context which you (and FAIRMORMON) have a habit it seems, of doing.
Are you serious? This doesn't deny prophetic infallibility, only that if things were different there would be MORE "revelation" in them. (Milk and meat argument) Out of context.
Lolitsme wrote:Really? This seems to pretty clearly say that Joseph did not reveal the whole truth, that his translation was false in some areas, and that some things are wrong and meant for stiff-necked people. How many laws did Christ overwrite to present a more full gospel? Just wondering about your view of the context here.
Are you even reading the same text? Obviously not. It says none of those things. It absolutely does not say anything of the kind. Please QUOTE where it does. It doesn't matter how much was overwritten to present a more full gospel. That is not the argument. The argument is prophetic infallibility, (not PERSONAL infallibility) which every single Mormon Prophet has claimed by the power of the "Holy Ghost". That is why NONE has ever admitted to making a doctrinal mistake. They have claimed that they didn't have enough "light and knowledge" and other such BS, but NEVER that they were doctrinally wrong. EVER.
Lolitsme wrote:And I don't believe Hales. Don't my statements make that pretty clear?
Not really.
Lolitsme wrote: I am suspicious of him, just as suspicious as I am of you. And you are taking what I say out of context.
Then why quote from him? Quote the sources. I don't care if you are suspicious of me. I'm quoting the sources and taking them for what they say. You are making things up as you go along.
Lolitsme wrote:I'm saying that if there are two contradictory statements about his own fallibility or infallibility, only one can be true. That he was fallible and another explanation must suffice for his other teaching. You're completely taking my statements out of context.
No, I'm not. I gave Smith's statement from 1844 as to what he believed for all of his life, that there were NO ERRORS in the REVELATIONS (plural, meaning them all) that he taught. You are the one trying to throw that out as an anomaly, or arrogance or whatever. I have given you what he said, taught and meant but apparently you don't like it, so you are claiming that something he wrote in 1830 that has nothing to do with prophetic infallibility will somehow discount what he said in 1844. You're wrong and out of context.
Lolitsme wrote:And on my recent conference statement, you didn't refute what I said, just tried to make my point self refuting. Mormon essays seem to make it pretty clear that our modern Prophets and Apostles think they are fallible, just another one.
Huh? It is self refuting, because it's out of context. And where in all the Mormon essays does it say that polygamy or the priesthood ban, or whatever was DOCTRINALLY WRONG at the time it was given? That any prophet taught false doctrine? All they claim is that "we don't know" which is a giant cop out. They will not, and never have destroyed the concept of prophetic infallibility. Show me where they do in the essays. Show me where they condemn Joseph or Brigham as being false prophets.
Lolitsme wrote:More quotes:
"…it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong." Brigham Young, in Thomas Bullock minutes, 8 May 1854, Church Historical Department. I got this from FAIR by the way.
That was your first mistake, going to FAIRMORMON. Have you even read this discourse? Do you know what it says? It is not about being wrong doctrinally but about temporal counsel. Here is a good swath of it to prove my point.
When a bishop magnifies his calling in all things you will find he is a father to the ward. I would be willing for him to control all temporal matters. Some say he does not understand
the different trades but when a person is not willing to be controlled by a bishop it proves there is a mistake somewhere. Hold your tongue until you know more than he does, for here is the mistake the people want a man to be the bishop and when he is ordained they want to ride over him. The bishop will have to dictate all the officers in his ward. Some think the Lord has made a mistake in appointing some of the bishops but I more thing the people made the mistake in accusing the bishop. I do not wish to accuse God of folly, but would rather say to the people, have faith for the man that he can not do a wrong but it would seem and awful thing for a people to have faith in a man who would lead them to hell. Now the faith of this people united can hold a man so light that his heart would scarce beat,or else they are not saints.
Where a man presides, the people should have faith pertaining to everything that that man can not do wrong. The people do wrong. I will tell you that five hundred men may choose a president for the first Sunday he rises up to talk, he may say something that they thing is wrong, when some elder will get up and say it is wrong but you should rather wait and see him in the street when you can talk to him himself that to reprove a president before the people, for in this you would commit a higher offence that he has, for I have had an experience in this, may a man slips and loses the confidence of a people because they would want to correct him openly,
it is not the place of any person to correct another who is superior to him, but to ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong
but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds of the people and I believe he always did drop the vail over it.Whoever presides over you let your faith be for that man but do not oppose him or get up a division between him and the people every man and woman will lead in the same track where you only think of it. I sent George A. Smith to you. Did you at all times obey him,do you think he was always right, was your faith always with the Lord or was it to oppose him. He was sent to you by the First Presidency. Do you think the First Presidency have always done right? I will take the privilege of judging the people by their works. I sent George A. Smith to make you huddle together and it puts me in the mind of the man who told his dog to go out of doors but he went under the table. He again told the dog to go out of doors, when he went under the bed,and he said well then go under the bed for you shall mind me any how. If I tell them in Provo to do a thing but they will go under the bed, they shall mind me. I tell you the counsel of George A. Smith was as good as the counsel of the Angel Gabriel. I know he gave good counsel and he did well. No man need tell me that he did not do right and if he was out of the way it was on account of the pain in his eyes and brain. Now I will give you good counsel and that is go to now and build a fort and make this place secure and it will be under the counsel I give to your bishop, the very man you ought to love. And when I am gone do not say I have not been counseled to do it. I told you years ago to build a fort. I tell you now you must all build forts or go under the bed, and I am now going to tell every man when you get your grain saved do not lose one half day until you have a wall around you. Now I say to you sisters if your husbands will not obey the council I give, get a man that will do it and let the men obey the counsel I am giving. If you want to go to California to get gold you will do worse than going under the bed or obeying your president here. I tell you your President Farr Perry and Bishop Johnson are so good men as any on the earth. Let me give them the wisdom and them they will dictate you and it is your duty to do at it and the spirit in there will put every man in the place where the Lord has placed them. (Van Wagoner, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 2, pp. 791-792)
It is obvious that this is about temporal matters and that Young stated that he believed that when he preached wrong, every time God "dropped a vail over it," so the people would forget it. This is still doctrinal infallibility, because the WRONG COULD NOT GO TO THE PEOPLE. But THIS SERMON is about TEMPORAL MATTERS, not doctrine. But Young applied this same principle to doctrine. He once stated he wished the Endowment Ceremony had not gotten out and that he had prayed that God would take it from people's minds. I don't think you understand Young at all.
Lolitsme wrote:"Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry." (A Series of Instructions and Remarks by President Brigham Young at a Special Council, Tabernacle, March 22, 1858 (Salt Lake City, 1858), pamphlet in Frederick Kesler Collection, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah. I got it from FAIR again.)
You really need to stop going to FAIRMORMON for quotes. They never quote anything in context. They also have the wrong date. This sermon was given on March 21, 1858. Aside from that, they seriously misquote Young (no surprise there). Here is what Young said, IN CONTEXT:
Many may say, “br. Brigham, perhaps you are mistaken; you are liable to err, and if the mob should not come, after all, and we should burn up our houses and learn that the Government had actually countermanded their orders and that no armies are coming to Utah, it would be a needless destruction. We have all the time felt that there was no need of leaving our houses. How easy it is for men to be mistaken, and we think a Prophet may be mistaken once in a while.” I am just as willing as the Lord, if he is disposed to make me make mistakes, and it is none of the business of any other person. If a people do the best they know, they have the power to ask and receive, and no power can prevent it.
And if the Lord wants me to make a mistake, I would as soon be mistaken as anything else, if that will save the lives of the people and give us the victory. If you get such feelings in your hearts, think of what my conclusion on the subject is, and do not come to my office to ask me whether I am mistaken, for I want to tell you now perhaps I am.
Do I want to save you? Ask that question. But John, what are you doing? Are you not an Elder in Israel? “Yes, I am a High Priest.” What is the office of an High Priest? John replies, “I do not know, without it is to whip my wife, knock down my children and make everybody obey me; and I believe a High Priest presides over an Elder.” You will find some Elders just about that ignorant. Let me tell you what the office of a High Priest and an Elder is. It holds the keys of the revelation of Jesus Christ; it unlocks the gates of heaven. It opens the broad windows of revelation from eternity. John, what are you about, imagining that I may be mistaken? or that br. Heber may be mistaken? Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not
knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry. (Brigham Young, sermon given on 21 March 1858, Salt Lake Tabernacle, transcribed by George D. Watt, Van Wagoner, Vol. 3, pp. 1417-1418)
This is from his afternoon sermon on the same day,
I have told you what causes apostacy. It arises from neglect of prayers and duties, and the Spirit of the Lord leaves those who are thus negligent and
they begin to think that the authorities of the church are wrong. In the days of Joseph the first thing manifested in the case of apostacy was the idea that Joseph was liable to be mistaken, and when a man admits that in his feelings and sets it down as a fact, it is a step towards apostacy, and he only needs to make one step more and he is cut off from the church. That is the case in any man. When several of the Twelve were cut off, the first step was that Joseph was a prophet, but he had fallen from his office and the Lord would suffer him to lead the people
wrong.
When persons get that idea in their minds, they are taking the first step to apostacy. If the Lord has designed that I should lead you wrong, then let us all go to hell together and, as Joseph used to say, we will take hell by force, turn the devils out and make a heaven of it. (ibid. pg. 1420)
It is self evident that Young did not believe he could ever lead the church astray or commit doctrinal errors. You are simply (you and FAIRMORMON) taking quote after quote out of context.
The quote is not wrong, it is the way it is applied. You missed the point, but I'm not surprised.
Lolitsme wrote:Here is Webster's 1828 dictionary of infallible
1. Not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons. No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only.
2. Not liable to fail, or to deceive confidence; certain; as infallible evidence; infallible success.
To whom he showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs--
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/infallible So we have that definition. Why would Joseph use that word if was not referring to doctrinal fallibility too. The Mormon revelatory model has always required a broken heart, contrite spirit, and desire to know the truth. If he is subject to passions just like any man, isn't he saying that he will receive false revelations, that he will err? Is that not what he claimed during the lost 116 pages. His bias only allowed him to accept one answer, and so he only accepted that answer and not the original council of God.
And? That is the definition I gave. No, being subject to "passions" is not saying that one will receive false revelations. You don't know what you are talking about. What he did with the 116 pages was DISREGARD what GOD told him to do. It had NOTHING to do with doctrinal (prophetic) infallibility. You just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.
